New legislation proposes changes to DREAM Act

Potential amendments would broaden scope of immigration bill

Jan. 16, 2013

Written by

Elena Novak

Staff Writer

Potential changes are on the horizon for the DREAM Act. House Bill 17 pledges in-state tuition to the children of undocumented immigrants who have attended an in-state high school for four years.

Originally, the DREAM Act was a piece of legislation introduced in 2001 which granted permanent residency to undocumented students who demonstrate good moral character, enrollment in college, had come to the U.S. by the age of 16 and were younger than 25, and lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

House Bill 17 has not yet passed, but its proposed amendments broaden the scope of the DREAM Act to offer in-state tuition.

The bill itself defines eligible students in the following manner.

“A dependent child who is a United States citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or a qualified legal alien whose parent is not a United States citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or a qualified legal alien and who attends a Florida high school for 4 consecutive years and submits his or her high school transcript to and enrolls in an institution of higher education within 12 months after graduating from a Florida high school,” the bill says.

This bill comes following a ruling last September by a federal judge declaring charging out-of-state tuition to the U.S.-born children of undocumented parents unconstitutional.According to Reuters, the case was brought forth by an Alabama law center on behalf of students denied in-state tuition to Florida colleges despite meeting the criteria of the DREAM Act.

“It is the plaintiffs who, upon graduating from a post-secondary educational institution, receive their names on diplomas, and it is plaintiffs—not plaintiffs’ parents, cousins, or siblings—who are entitled to the benefits conferred by such a degree,” the judge, Michael Moore, told Reuters.

HB 17 would essentially make the judge’s declaration law, which to FSU President of the College Democrats Matty Budesa it would be a positive legal change.

“I think that this plan is a great idea for a few key reasons,” Budesa said in a written statement. “First off, we have already invested in these students throughout their high school years, they receive equal educational treatment (or at least are supposed to) as any citizen in the Florida elementary and secondary education systems. By forcing them to pay out-of-state tuition, we are lowering the likelihood that they will be able to afford, much less attend, an institution of higher education. If they have the desire to continue their education but are unable to do so, then the educational funding we have already put into them is in a sense lost when their dreams are inevitably cut short.”

Budesa also believes that these students should not be punished for their parents’ illegal status, since many of the children themselves know America as their only home.

Additionally, the constant growth of the Hispanic population in America forces the nation to consider the groups’ needs.

“It’s foolish to think we can simply ignore or push aside such a large group of people,” Budesa said. “I believe that this policy can also lead to a more simplified path to citizenship for the students who participate, helping us be more inclusive of our Hispanic citizenry.”

Maria Naranjo, co-president of Advocates for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, has a different opinion.

She disagrees with many key aspects of HB 17 and instead advocates for HB 29, a similar bill.

She disapproves of the criteria demanding applicants to have attended school in Florida for four years and subsequently be enrolled in college within 12 months of graduation.

“For any other case, residency for in-state tuition purposes is declared after the student or their guardian has lived in the state of Florida for 12 months prior to the enrollment to the institution,” Naranjo said in a written statement. “Since we are talking about people who ‘legally’ have the right to be here, I do not see why special restrictions should be imposed.”

Additionally, Naranjo said, many students do not want to enroll in college immediately after graduating and should not be forced to do so in order to receive in-state tuition.“Again, in-state tuition is a huge step for the movement in the state of Florida, but what would be ideal is passing HB 29, a bill that provides the same benefits as HB 17, but only demands attending a Florida high school for one year,” Naranjo said.

Michael Sampson, member of the organization Dream Defenders, feels that Florida is too behind on legislation offering in-state tuition.

Already, 12 states offer such legislation. Texas was the first in 2001.

“I think more proactive type of measures like that need to be taken to ensure that the youth in Florida get a proper education,” Sampson said.